「安身立命」抑或「與神和好－基督教信仰適合中國人嗎 (粵)溫偉耀博士

Wrong? Those were fundamentalists for sure. Can you even think correctly, Kowkman?

Wrong! Those who twisted their doctrines and misinterpreted God's words, and quite obviously those of a different religion, flew planes into the WTC. (not to say there was no Christian that made serious mistakes.) They are called extremists.

Cool? Those were the type of people who flew planes into buildings on 9/11 in 2001.

fundamentalist zeal -- cool! (not that i deserved this honor.)

kwokman: this confirms your pointlessness. Wake up from your dogmatic slumber please, if you can. By then, you may realize the relevancy of my arguments. Right now, I understand you are blinded by your fundamentalist zeal.

2011, my first comment adquately responded to all of your opinions expressed in your first comment, which was not even related to this post. thereafter, i beg to find any logical argument. you have confirmed my initial observation. you do have too much time on your hands. i on the other hand have better things to do. get a life, anonymously if you want.

Oh, about that "anonymous" thing, kwokkman, did you realize that the validity of an argument does not depend on its author? Relativity is true not because it was proposed by Einstein. Do you understand what is the logical force of an argument? Who cares whether the author is anonymous?

kwokman: did I invite you to respond in the first place? NO. Besides if you have no points or arguments, you are obviously not obligated to respond.

2011 anonymous, why do you think i'm obligated to respond to your opinionated bickering? Unbelivable you are!!

kwokkman, I don't think you even understand the force of my criticisms. If you think I comments ought to be on point and related to the subject matter, how come you have not answered any one point of my criticism on Dr. Wan's view? Shame on you. About respect, I have the utmost respect for Dr. Wan. I think he is better than a lot of fundamentalist Christians. I simply do not agree with his views. I have read at least 3 books by Dr. Wan and listened to him countless times on Chinese philosophy and Christianity. If you think my criticisms are off the mark, please specify. Otherwise I can hardly respect your empty words.

2011, comments ought to be on point and related to the subject matter. when you don't even respect that and when you're bashing anonymously, how could you expect anyone to respect you? on a lot of web sites, unrelated comments will simply be deleted. at least i have listened to this entire clip and happen to agree with Dr Wan on this subject. if you'd like to bash, start your own blog and tell who you are.

kwokkman, Have you answered even one of my criticisms? No. You're as blind as any other fundamentalist Christians who have become the symbol of ignorance in the 20th and 21st centuries. Go check with Dr. Wan. See whether he honestly agrees with fundamentalist Christianity. Even Billy Graham has given it up these days.

2011, you have too much time on your hands. this clip wasn't even working. i've fixed it now. why don't you listen to it before giving your opinion. acknowledging the all mighty God is a humble act. stressing your self-defined abstract equality is not all that humble. what's equality? what's good for you often hurts others. there's no absolute equality. futhermore, equality is not truth. truth is not about being humble. truth is inrefutable. it's not a bargain or compromise.

Although far more learned than Dr. Wan, Professor John Macquarrie , Dr. Wan's Oxford teacher, was a lot more humble than he is. In his book Mediators Between Human and Divine, Macquarrie said, "I drew the conclusion that there should be an end to proselytizing but that equally there should be no syncretism of the kind typified by the Baha'i movement." (p.2) I think Macquarrie was right; Dr. Wan was wrong.

I disagree with Dr. Wan's criticism of Confucianism which was partly based on the concept of "grue" devised by the philosopher Nelson Goodman. It fact, as far as that conceptual issue is concerned, Confucianism is a lot more simple and straightforward than an external god. After all, what's defined as "fortune" depends on how one sees it if Confucianism is adopted; it does not depend on the external environment. In addition, the problem of proving "X" is really god, not devil or a minor god, is so complicated and metaphysical that it is impossible to ascertain. Relying on that uncertainty to ensure the good fortunes of people who do good is a joke. I am surprised that after so many years of studies, Dr. Wan has not made a big improvement. In terms of academic insights, his Oxford teacher Professor John Macquarrie was a lot better than Dr Wan.